Back
Madras High Court
RAMAKRISHNAN,SADASIVAM
Mrs.Nesamoney Daniel - Appellant
Versus
Government of Madras, represented by the Secy.to the Govt.Education and Public Health Dept.Madras - Respondent
Decided On : 11/12/1965
MEDICAL REGISTRATION ACT - RULE 4 (1) (A) - ULTRA VIRES - COMPLAINT AGAINST MEDICAL PRACTITIONER - PRELIMINARY PROCEDURE - DROPPING OF FURTHER PROCEEDINGS - APPEAL TO GOVERNMENT - MAINTAINABILITY.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a teacher in a government-aided primary school, was required to take an insurance policy on her life. She presented herself for medical examination to the third respondent, a doctor employed by the estate where the school was located. The doctor submitted a report to the Life Insurance Corporation stating that the appellant had undergone an operation for hysterotomy 20 years previously. The appellant, who had never undergone such an operation, contacted the doctor, who assured her that he would take up the necessary correspondence with the Life Insurance Corporation. The appellant did not take any further interest in the matter until she learned that the doctor had written to the Insurance Corporation confirming the operation. She filed a complaint with the Medical Council against the doctor, alleging that he had sent a false report. The Medical Council accepted the doctor's explanation and dropped further proceedings without giving the appellant an opportunity to substantiate her allegation. The appellant filed a writ petition challenging the Medical Council's order and the government's refusal to entertain her appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that rule 4 (1) (a) of the rules framed under the Medical Registration Act, which empowers the Medical Council to drop further proceedings against a medical practitioner after obtaining his explanation, is intra vires the Act. The court found that the Medical Council had acted within its jurisdiction in accepting the doctor's explanation and dropping further proceedings, and that the government was correct in dismissing the appellant's appeal under Section 18 of the Act, as no appeal lies to the government against an order passed at the preliminary stage before embarking on an inquiry under Section 13 or Section 16 of the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether rule 4 (1) (a) of the rules framed under the Medical Registration Act is ultra vires the Act. 2. Whether the Medical Council acted within its jurisdiction in accepting the doctor's explanation and dropping further proceedings without giving the appellant an opportunity to substantiate her allegation. 3. Whether the government was correct in dismissing the appellant's appeal under Section 18 of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that rule 4 (1) (a) of the rules framed under the Medical Registration Act is intra vires the Act. The court reasoned that the rule falls within the rule-making power conferred on the Governor-in-Council under Section 24 of the Act, as it serves the purpose of the penal provisions of the Act by ensuring that frivolous complaints are screened out before a formal inquiry is ordered. 2. The court found that the Medical Council had acted within its jurisdiction in accepting the doctor's explanation and dropping further proceedings. The court noted that the doctor had admitted his default in not making a per vaginal examination, but that the Medical Council had discretion to decide whether his default was a venial one to be excused or a serious lapse requiring punishment. The court found that the Medical Council had justification in accepting the doctor's explanation in the absence of any mala fides on his part. 3. The court held that the government was correct in dismissing the appellant's appeal under Section 18 of the Act. The court found that Section 18 provides for an appeal to the government only when there is a decision of the Council under Section 13 or Section 16, which refer to formal inquiries conducted against a medical practitioner. In the present case, the Medical Council had not conducted a formal inquiry, but had dropped further proceedings at the preliminary stage under rule 4 (1) (a). Therefore, the court held that no appeal lay to the government.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appellant's appeals.
RAMAKRISHNAN, J. :- These appeals are directed against the order of Srinivasan, J. in W. P. 123 and 124 of 1961 in which the prayers were for the issue of a writ of certiorari and consequent writ of mandamus respectively. The prior facts required for a consideration of these two appeals are briefly the following :
The appellant Mrs Nesamoney Daniel was employed as a teacher in the Government aided Primary School, Pannimade estate, Annamalais. Under the rules issued by the Deputy Inspector of Schools, the appellant in her capacity as a teacher of a primary school, was obliged to take an insurance policy on her life. As instructed by the Life Insurance Corporation, she presented herself for medical examination, to one Dr. E. V. Mathai, M.B.B.S. the third respondent in the two writ petitions, who was at that time employed by the estate, in which the teacher was also employed. Sometime later, she received a communication from the Life Insurance Corporation stating that the report of the third respondent showed that 20 years previously she had been operated upon for hysterotomy (removal of the uterus). She was asked to give a history of the operation including the details. The appellant felt surprised, as she had never undergone such an operation, and contacted the third respondent, who assured her that he would take up the necessary correspondence with the Life Insurance Corporation. The appellant did not take any further interest in the matter. Subsequently, in connection with some other proceedings, she learnt that the third respondent had written to the Insurance Corporation., in answer to their communication, to the effect that the appellant had undergone an operation for hysterotomy, in the hospital, as she had a prolonged and difficult labour ending in the rupture of the uterus.
It is common ground, that the Corporation accepted the proposal according to the normal schedule of rates, that is for a healthy person. She became aware of the communication of the third respondent, to the Life Insurance Corporation about the operation, which she had never undergone, in or about April 1959, and thereafter she got herself examined by the company's Chief Medical Officer. Dr. Kuruvilla John, M.B.B.S. who, after a careful examination, certified that she had never undergone an operation for hysterotomy, that her uterus was intact and that there was no scar on the abdomen indicating an operation. Thereupon, the appellant filed a complaint to the Registrar, Madras Medical Council, against the third respondent, asking that suitable action should be taken against him, for his sending a false report about her, to the Life Insurance Corporation. The Medical Council then called for an explanation from the third respondent which he submitted, and that explanation was accepted by the Medical Council. They decided not to take any further action against the third respondent, but without giving any opportunity to the appellant, to substantiate her allegation against the third respondent,and giving her a hearing. The appeal which the appellant filed against the order of the Medical Council, to the Government of Madras, under S. 10 of the Madras Medical Registration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), was rejected by the first respondent, the Government of Madras, represented by the Secretary to the Government, Education and Public Health Department, by an order stating that no appeal lay to the Government on the facts of this case. On the above allegations the appellant filed the two writ petitions for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the order of the first respondent Government, because the Government did have jurisdiction to grant relief in her appeal, but without any proper reasons. It declined to exercise that jurisdiction. The order of the Medical Council accepting the explanation of the third respondent, was also sought to be quashed by writ of certiorari, because that body had violated the principles of natural justice a
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
